When I was a student teacher, I had a conversation with a science teacher I worked with about natural selection. I asked if she thought this process of survival of the fittest was a good thing. “Oh yes,” she replied quickly, “natural selection helps weed out the weaker of a species and makes the species stronger, which serves the greater good of the group.” I then asked her a follow-up question I had been genuinely curious about for a while. “Well, if natural selection is actually a good thing,” I said, “then is it unwise for people to give to the poor?” The way I saw it, if evolutionary progress should truly be our goal, then doesn’t charity only perpetuate the existence of the “weaker” of the human race and prolong the process of natural selection? My colleague’s answer was fascinating to me. She shrugged and said, “I mean, I don’t give to the poor.”
More than 300 times in the Bible, we are encouraged to give to the needy. In Luke 14, Jesus says, “When you give a banquet, invite the poor, the crippled, the lame, the blind, and you will be blessed.” Proverbs 19:17 says, “Whoever is kind to the poor lends to the Lord, and will be repaid in full.” Jesus adds to this message in Matthew 25 in his parable about the sheep and the goats. He says, “When the Son of Man comes in his glory… the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father… For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.’” The righteous then asked when they had done any of these things, and the King replied, “Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.”
Caring for those in need is something we all can do better. But the demographic numbers of charitable giving show some interesting patterns concerning which types of people most faithfully donate their money and time to others. A 2021 study from the National Library of Medicine on the giving habits of Americans came to the following conclusion: “Our meta-analysis results suggest that political conservatives are significantly more charitable than liberals at an overall level.” This conclusion was not entirely expected, given the stereotype that liberals care about the poor and conservatives are only concerned for the rich. But more studies have corroborated these findings.
According to data from the IRS presented in the Chronicle of Philanthropy, the percentage of people’s incomes given to charity varies widely state-by-state. The most generous states are Utah and Mississippi, where people give 6.6% and 5.0% of their incomes to the poor, respectively.
At the bottom of the generosity scale are New Hampshire, Maine, and Vermont, where people give, on average, 2.0% of their income or less to the needy. Utah is often chided as being a cult haven for kooky Mormons, and Mississippi is typically viewed as a fundamentalist backwater where progress and compassion go to die via sawed-off shotgun.
But residents of these devoutly religious, deeply conservative states give two to three times more money to charity than residents of the progressive, secular, Ivy League states. In fact, all 15 of the most generous states are “red states,” and 13 of the 15 least generous states are “blue states.” This statistic is all the more notable when one learns that red states tend to be poorer than blue states, meaning those with less tend to give more.
These findings are echoed in the 2007 book Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth about Compassionate Conservatism by Arthur Brooks. 31% of Republicans donate at least $1,000 to charity every year, compared with 17% of Democrats. These generosity trends extend beyond just financial givings. People in states like Mississippi also donate more blood and spend more hours volunteering than people from places like New England.
But these trends may have more to do with religion than with politics. Religious people give far more to the less fortunate than secular people do. For example, the Hoover Institution conducted a study that discovered the following: “Religious people are 25 percentage points more likely than secularists to donate money (91 percent to 66 percent) and 23 points more likely to volunteer time (67 percent to 44 percent). Religious people are 33% of the population but make 52% of donations and 45% of times volunteered. Secular people are 26% of the population but contribute 13% of the dollars and 17% of the times volunteered.” Clearly, there is something about being a person of faith that tends to make people care more for the needy.
Secular, left-wing comedian Daniel Tosh once joked to his audience that he actually had a lot of right-wing views. “For example,” he said, “I hate the poor.” His audience roared with laughter over his facetious commentary on how heartless conservatives are toward poor people. Somehow, compassion for the poor has been perceived as something more in line with secular progressivism than with religious conservatism.
But the facts reveal the exact opposite to be true. Jesus says the best way to love him is to love our neighbors in need, and followers of Jesus have been trying to keep that command ever since. Far from being “the weakest of the species,” fit only to be “weeded out,” St. Lawrence described the poor as “the treasures of the Church.” Mother Teresa said we owe the poor so much because they help us to love God better. So, why would we ever deny ourselves that joy?
Make us worthy, Lord, to serve our fellow men throughout the world who live and die in poverty and hunger. Give them through our hands this day their daily bread and by our understanding love, give peace and joy. –Mother Teresa
Jonathan Kettler is a history teacher at Brandon High School.
